Thread: How to avoid a repeat, and why it's crucial to do so.

Lessons of Vietnam
How to avoid a repeat, and why it's crucial to do so.

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST


Sometime in the next few weeks President Bush is expected to unveil a new strategy for moving forward in Iraq. Let's hope he first takes a serious look at the missteps that tripped up this nation in its last drawn out, intractable war: Vietnam.

It's startling that today there are few parallels being drawn between Iraq and the conflict that ended in Southeast Asia some three decades ago. When President Bush moved to topple Saddam Hussein, comparisons to Vietnam never seemed far from the surface. The media were looking for the first sign that the war had become a quagmire; and antiwar activists, this time with graying ponytails and faded peace signs, gathered in public squares to protest the "pre-emptive" war. But now, just as the conflict is in danger of becoming another Vietnam, few are willing to sound notes of caution of how to avoid it.

And it's becoming increasingly clear that some policy makers in Washington would lead us down a similar road to defeat. Richard Nixon was sworn into office in 1969 promising to end the war in Vietnam, and he asked senior military personnel for their recommendations. He soon learned that there wasn't a consensus on how to achieve victory, so he settled on finding an exit. He called it "peace with honor" and began instituting a policy of "Vietnamization," substituting South Vietnam's soldiers for Americans on the battlefield while executing a staged withdrawal from the country. The difference today is that we've had a policy of Iraqification before the White House followed up with a group study. We'll have to wait and see if this results in a different outcome.




In his book "Abandoning Vietnam," James Willbanks, a historian at the Combat Studies Institute at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., digs through the Nixon administration's series of decisions that finally resulted in the fall of Saigon in 1975. Mr. Willbanks, a military veteran who saw combat as an infantrymen during North Vietnam's 1972 Easter Offensive, shows that the Nixon administration was focused more on ending the war than on winning it and a that the U.S. came a lot closer to winning than many people believe today.


One reason for broad military offensives from the North is that the U.S. policy of pacifying the countryside had largely worked, and that after the Tet Offensive in 1968, indigenous insurgents in the South were largely destroyed as an effective fighting force. In a conversation recently, Mr. Willbanks cautiously offered that with a little more help the South Vietnamese would have had a much better chance of holding on. At the end, the North was reduced to waging the very type of war the U.S. military was geared to fight: intensive, heavy infantry battles. But by then the war had been lost at home.

Mr. Willbanks noted that in defeating insurgencies, it takes a long time to build up indigenous forces capable of holding their own against a determined enemy. He also noted that successfully fighting off insurgents once isn't proof that a new army is capable of bearing the full burden of a nation's defense, and that it takes a lot more than handing over modern equipment to build a modern army. When South Vietnam fell, he noted, the North captured a treasure trove of American tanks, trucks and other equipment sitting in warehouses. American soldiers enjoy the most modern tools of war, but their real strength comes in the tactics and training needed to use those tools successfully.

Another lesson from Vietnam is that the real damage in withdrawing too early could come not in a far-off battlefield, but in Washington. Rep. John Kline, a former Marine and Minnesota Republican, is one policy maker who is cognizant of the effect losing a war can have on the home front. After flying helicopter combat missions in Vietnam, he spent several years serving in Washington, including carrying the nuclear "football" for President Reagan. In reading through President Ford's obituaries this past week, many Americans may remember the Vietnamese boat people Ford allowed to settle in the U.S.

But what Mr. Kline mentioned in our conversation is that while the nation was on the retreat in Southeast Asia, disdain for American military power abroad trickled down to disdain for American military personnel at home. And it wasn't only antiwar protestors. In the wake of Vietnam, military personnel were discouraged from wearing uniforms while off duty within the city limits, and the feeling in the ranks was that even senior officials in the government viewed the military as an embarrassment. Morale was predictably low. That changed with Reagan's inauguration in 1981 and his subsequent military buildup. But anyone who thinks accepting defeat in Iraq will return the nation to a prewar mindset of a confident American foreign policy might take a look at the 2008 presidential contenders and ask who would play the role Reagan ended up playing in the 1980s. Who will rebuild the nation's confidence and pride in its military and in projecting itself across the globe?




That role may never have to be filled if President Bush can now find a way to avoid leaving the nation where Ford found it when he took the reins in 1974. But how can Mr. Bush do that with little more than two years left in office? One consensus that's forming among "realists" within foreign policy circles is a new domino theory: that to achieve victory in Iraq, the president must first get the other Middle Eastern dominos to fall into place. The Iraq Study Group concluded that the administration must reach out to Syria and Iran, among others, and before achieving victory in Iraq must first find a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Saddam Hussein lent his own moral authority--such as it is--to connecting the Palestinians' war on Israel to Iraq shortly before being led to the gallows. While being read his death sentence, the deposed tyrant shouted, "Long live the nation! Long live the people! Long live the Palestinians!"


Saddam is dead, but the problem of building a stable, democratic government in Baghdad remains. It's encouraging that the president seems intent on making a sharp turn. Senior policymakers who gathered at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, over the holidays reportedly debated "surging" American troops in Iraq with the hope that an additional 20,000 or 30,000 troops will finally tip the balance in favor of victory.

But tipping the balance in favor of winning--we may fairly conclude from Mr. Willbanks history of Nixon's war--isn't always everyone's goal in Washington. Sen. Joe Biden, who is poised to become the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has already said he opposes sending more troops.

Absolving himself of responsibility of what may happen if he successfully hamstrings the president, the Democrat has said there is nothing Congress can do to alter the outcome on the ground in Iraq: "This is President Bush's war." If Mr. Biden finds purchase with this line of reasoning as he stakes out the ground for a presidential campaign, we may indeed get another Vietnam. And it won't only be the man now in the White House who suffers from that defeat.


Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from
Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

Here is the pertinent part of this commentary:

But tipping the balance in favor of winning--we may fairly conclude from Mr. Willbanks history of Nixon's war--isn't always everyone's goal in Washington. Sen. Joe Biden, who is poised to become the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has already said he opposes sending more troops.

Absolving himself of responsibility of what may happen if he successfully hamstrings the president, the Democrat has said there is nothing Congress can do to alter the outcome on the ground in Iraq: "This is President Bush's war." If Mr. Biden finds purchase with this line of reasoning as he stakes out the ground for a presidential campaign, we may indeed get another Vietnam. And it won't only be the man now in the White House who suffers from that defeat.

It is incumbent that we not allow the same myopic view of Vietnam to affect policy in Iraq.

The main reason for this view and public perception comes to us care of the media, who in it's partisan way, has decided that the ONLY worthy news coming from Iraq are daily body counts and bombings rather than the WHOLE story of what is REALLY happening in Iraq.

This policy of only doing the news that fits their pre-conceived template, that Iraq is a failure and now a civil war, is why many have come to regard the media barely above the credibility of a politician.

Senator Biden's views illustrate how Democrats are historically challenged and choose to pursue partisan political rhetoric over honest intellectual debate.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

It's startling that today there are few parallels being drawn between Iraq and the conflict that ended in Southeast Asia some three decades ago.

A parallel is not being drawn because the ''clear and hold''
devastation used in Vietnam was a blunt hammer approach
that is not being used in the Iraqi occupation.
Vietnam and victory - The Boston Globe

We are not carpet bombing the insurgency into oblivion. We
are attempting a benevolent occupation, with the notion of
nation building.

Originally Posted by bla bla

A parallel is not being drawn because the ''clear and hold''
devastation used in Vietnam was a blunt hammer approach
that is not being used in the Iraqi occupation.
Vietnam and victory - The Boston Globe

We are not carpet bombing the insurgency into oblivion. We
are attempting a benevolent occupation, with the notion of
nation building.

I guess you missed the substance of this paragraph:

When President Bush moved to topple Saddam Hussein, comparisons to Vietnam never seemed far from the surface. The media were looking for the first sign that the war had become a quagmire; and antiwar activists, this time with graying ponytails and faded peace signs, gathered in public squares to protest the "pre-emptive" war. But now, just as the conflict is in danger of becoming another Vietnam, few are willing to sound notes of caution of how to avoid it.

And no, we are not attempting a benevolent occupation with the notion of nation building.

We went in to enforce resolutions being ignored by a despot who was a known threat to his neighbors, our way of life, and his own people and who was believed to be once more re-constituting his WMD programs.

I find this telling when people see this as an inconvenient truth. I guess everyone thinks that we should just allow despots to ignore their agreements and treaties and that we should only enforce them when they murder and maim once again and only if it offends the conscience of the world body.

It's inane to even have a UN if it is a feckless, spineless organization more inclined to useless debate than enforcement of its own agreements. Yet all who hate Bush would have us believe that THIS is the only final word in world policy.

How many times have they stated that they REALLY mean it to Iran now? How many deadlines have expired? The only thing apparent in the UN is that it never means what it says and that it is guided by a membership who is more inclined to endless leftist rhetoric than action.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

And no, we are not attempting a benevolent occupation with the notion of nation building.

Tell that to the troops under a demonstrated treat of criminal
prosecution for shooting the wrong person in this war zone.

We went in to enforce resolutions being ignored by a despot who was a known threat to his neighbors, our way of life, and his own people and who was believed to be once more re-constituting his WMD programs.

And Kim Jong Ill who launched missiles at us, playing a sick
game of "is it a nuke", is of no interest to Bush. We have talks,
and do nothing. He is free to grind millions into poverty, and death.

I find this telling when people see this as an inconvenient truth. I guess everyone thinks that we should just allow despots to ignore their agreements and treaties and that we should only enforce them when they murder and maim once again and only if it offends the conscience of the world body.

Its an inconvenient truth that Bush selected to depose the one
brutal dictator that his father was at odds with, and completely
ignores all the rest.

It's inane to even have a UN if it is a feckless, spineless organization more inclined to useless debate than enforcement of its own agreements. Yet all who hate Bush would have us believe that THIS is the only final word in world policy.

Yes, the UN is a useless flock of clucking head nodders
that have no will to back any resolution with force that is
not provided by the US.

How many times have they stated that they REALLY mean it to Iran now? How many deadlines have expired? The only thing apparent in the UN is that it never means what it says and that it is guided by a membership who is more inclined to endless leftist rhetoric than action.

No kidding.

Bush put us in Iraq for personal reasons while
remaining steadfastly ignorant of the ME destabilization
that would fallow.

Originally Posted by bla bla

Bush put us in Iraq for personal reasons while
remaining steadfastly ignorant of the ME destabilization
that would fallow.

Not only did he put us into this war of convenience, he did so in a manner which would make victory difficult if not impossible.

If we were to really learn the lessons of Vietnam we would have learned the importance of NOT placing artificial restrictions on the troops. My principal objection to this occupation is that this administration wants to half-step their way through it. This approach has resulted in needless deaths.

Yes, we were close to a military victory in Vietnam, but the reason we withdrew was economics. We simply couldn't afford the financial cost of the war. The reason for this: Lyndon Johnson couldn't decide which he wanted more: His great society or victory in Vietnam. He tried to have both and actually got neither. How does this relate to Iraq? Simply this: The current administration has hamstrung the war effort by borrowing money to grant tax cuts just when the government NEEDS the money to wage the war. Every discussion of rolling the cuts back has met with resistance from the very people who claim to support the occupation. So when they talk about defeatism, and wanting America to lose this struggle they need only look to themselves.

Originally Posted by bla bla

Quote:
Tell that to the troops under a demonstrated treat of criminal
prosecution for shooting the wrong person in this war zone.

So you believe that if troops commit crimes in time of war, that they should not be tried for it?

History does not support your view here. Once more, you make claims that are not supported by historic fact, or reality.

One other thing, they were not tried and convicted for shooting the wrong person. They were convicted of deliberately shooting the wrong person. I know that is an inconvenient FACT for you.

Originally Posted by bla bla

Quote:
And Kim Jong Ill who launched missiles at us, playing a sick
game of "is it a nuke", is of no interest to Bush. We have talks,
and do nothing. He is free to grind millions into poverty, and death.

When did Kim Jong Ill launch missiles at us? This, once again is a figment of your imagination and a weak, yet false attempt to dispute the FACTS.

How is it of no interest to Bush? This is yet another lie.

Last time I looked, he was desperately trying to use diplomacy through the UN and neighboring nations to North Korea. I thought people like you prescribed to that? Are you now attempting to argue we should invade North Korea? And if so, what is our legal basis?

Last time I looked, Kim Jong Ill had not invaded a neighboring nation in recent history. I don't know how this argument can hold water. Especially in light of the fact that you falsley believe we should not be in Iraq, yet attempt to make a case for invading North Korea where we have no legal bearing.

Originally Posted by bla bla

Quote:
Its an inconvenient truth that Bush selected to depose the one
brutal dictator that his father was at odds with, and completely
ignores all the rest.

Once more you attempt to lie to make your points. Apparently you find the TRUTH inconvenient. This was not the reason we went into Iraq. I refer you, once more to the Iraq Resolution which was overwhelmingly approved by the Congress and joined by 34 other nations:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Read it and become INFORMED. No need to lie here.

Originally Posted by bla bla

Bush put us in Iraq for personal reasons while
remaining steadfastly ignorant of the ME destabilization
that would fallow.

I see. So in your myopic and historically challenged view, the Middle East was stable before we went in?

THINK. Is that too much to ask? Be Intellectually HONEST. Is that too much to ask?

For your information, Bush did not unilaterally put us into Iraq. That is an inconveninet lie.

The American people and the US congress did. Bush implemented the action. Once more, READ the resolution approved by the US Congress.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

When did Kim Jong Ill launch missiles at us?

Thats a joke, right?

Originally Posted by bla bla

Its an inconvenient truth that Bush selected to depose the one
brutal dictator that his father was at odds with, and completely
ignores all the rest.

Actually, that's in irrelevant truth.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Not only did he put us into this war of convenience, he did so in a manner which would make victory difficult if not impossible.

Once more your comment that this is a "war of convenience" is not a fact but your opinion which is not supported by the FACTS.

Stating that Bush did it in a manner that would make victory difficult also defies the reality on the ground.

We deposed a regime with one of the largest militaries in the Middle East in less than a month. In less than two years they have conducted legal elections where all their people have representation and where the participation levels were a HUGE majority and in larger proportions than elections here in the US.

Only someone in denial can see this as failure.

I don't share your OPINION that this is not victory. If anything, in MY view, we have the terrorists and despots on the ropes. The Socialists of the world are doing everything they can to impede this progress.

Iran finds itself surrounded and isolated and Syria is less than relevant. Yet people like you want to paint this as a failure. Profound in ignorance as this is, it is also shared by many other Leftists and Socialists in the world who see an American success in Iraq as somehow bad for the world and the Iraqi people.

It is my hope that people like you are not successful in forcing a defeat where victory is more than imminent.

You're views, as well as others who share it, defy logic and reality. But then, when you are spoon fed the never ending pictures of violence and body counts by a media who hates George Bush more than they hate the thought of handing the terrorists a victory, how can I be surprised by it.